New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention

[Emma]

The NDAA should be struck down entirely. No party, person should have this power.

Not struck down, just amended where necessary, imo.

 

[Si modo]

So ... it was a-ok when a Republican had these powers, but not so much when a Democratic president is in office. Gotcha.

When did a Republican president authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens? Oh, they didn't? Gotcha.

You can shut up now.

PRESIDENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIVE/PPD-14

SUBJECT: Procedures Implementing S e c t i o n 1022 o f the
N a t i o n a l Defense A u t h o r i z a t i o n Act f o r F i s c al
Year (FY) 2012


http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf



SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.


(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

So you can stfu too.

EXCEPT when the President says so.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.​

So, we better not piss him off.

 

[bucs90]

It still baffles me how the left wing and the media have ignored this. By far the scariest, creepiest legislation in years, all under Obama, passed on New Years Eve.

Basically means the military can officially become the police, over any citizen, anywhere. And we thought liberals hated cops now.....wait til the US Marines are doing drug warrants and the Army is doing highway traffic enforcement. I know, however, that the men and women of the military have FAR too much integrity to ever follow through on unlawful orders and no politician will change that.

But just the fact that this radical left wing admin went ahead and put it down on paper to make it possible is shocking.

 

[Emma]

EXCEPT when the President says so.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

Paragraph 1:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021


Sections 1021 and 1022 specifically exempt US citizens from military detention. President Obama did issue a waiver regarding non-citizens.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf

 

[Emma]

It still baffles me how the left wing and the media have ignored this. By far the scariest, creepiest legislation in years, all under Obama, passed on New Years Eve.

Basically means the military can officially become the police, over any citizen, anywhere. And we thought liberals hated cops now.....wait til the US Marines are doing drug warrants and the Army is doing highway traffic enforcement. I know, however, that the men and women of the military have FAR too much integrity to ever follow through on unlawful orders and no politician will change that.

But just the fact that this radical left wing admin went ahead and put it down on paper to make it possible is shocking.

No it doesn't. Read the above.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.


(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.


His waiver can be overturned by another President, though.

 

[Oddsfish]

So ... it was a-ok when a Republican had these powers, but not so much when a Democratic president is in office. Gotcha.

When did a Republican president authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens? Oh, they didn't? Gotcha.

You can shut up now.

Well Lincoln did, and technically he was a Republican.

But I doubt that's what Emma is talking about; she just sounds angry and ignorant.

 

[Si modo]

EXCEPT when the President says so.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

Paragraph 1:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021


Sections 1021 and 1022 specifically exempt US citizens from military detention. President Obama did issue a waiver regarding non-citizens.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf

The first phrase, Emma.

"Except as provided in paragraph (4)" I quoted paragraph four. When the President says so, he can indefinitely detain anyone he wants, as long as he writes Congress a note saying it's for national security.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

EXCEPT when the President says so.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

Paragraph 1:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021


Sections 1021 and 1022 specifically exempt US citizens from military detention. President Obama did issue a waiver regarding non-citizens.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf

The first phrase, Emma.

"Except as provided in paragraph (4)" I quoted paragraph four. When the President says so, he can indefinitely detain anyone he wants, as long as he writes Congress a note saying it's for national security.

No, he can't. Read the next section of the law:

RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

[whitehall]

Only a fascist president would order the indefinite detention of a US citizen without due process. Didn't Barry Hussein learn anything from FDR's unlawful incarceration of Japanese American citizens?

 

[Si modo]

Paragraph 1:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021


Sections 1021 and 1022 specifically exempt US citizens from military detention. President Obama did issue a waiver regarding non-citizens.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf

The first phrase, Emma.

"Except as provided in paragraph (4)" I quoted paragraph four. When the President says so, he can indefinitely detain anyone he wants, as long as he writes Congress a note saying it's for national security.

No, he can't. Read the next section of the law:

RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Then, I wonder why Obama attached a signing statement to the law (and signing statements can be revoked at any time the President sees fit): The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.”

Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of terror suspects - The Washington Post

 

[Si modo]

Only a fascist president would order the indefinite detention of a US citizen without due process. Didn't Barry Hussein learn anything from FDR's unlawful incarceration of Japanese American citizens?

And, I think that is why Obama has reservations about the bill.

It needs to be changed. IMO, it is unconstitutional. And, if it isn't modified, I have no doubt the ACLU will challenge it in the courts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The first phrase, Emma.

"Except as provided in paragraph (4)" I quoted paragraph four. When the President says so, he can indefinitely detain anyone he wants, as long as he writes Congress a note saying it's for national security.

No, he can't. Read the next section of the law:

RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Then, I wonder why Obama attached a signing statement to the law (and signing statements can be revoked at any time the President sees fit): The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.”

Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of terror suspects - The Washington Post

Probably to calm the tin-foil hat crowd. It's pretty clear from the text of the law that it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely against this bill - not because it applies to US citizens, but that it applies to anyone at all. Justifying indefinite detention of anyone is a problem to me, citizen or not.

 

[Si modo]

No, he can't. Read the next section of the law:

Then, I wonder why Obama attached a signing statement to the law (and signing statements can be revoked at any time the President sees fit): The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.”

Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of terror suspects - The Washington Post

Probably to calm the tin-foil hat crowd. It's pretty clear from the text of the law that it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely against this bill - not because it applies to US citizens, but that it applies to anyone at all. Justifying indefinite detention of anyone is a problem to me, citizen or not.

It may be clear to you, but it's not so clear to the ACLU and many other civil rights organizations.

And it's not so clear to the POTUS, either.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then, I wonder why Obama attached a signing statement to the law (and signing statements can be revoked at any time the President sees fit): The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.”

Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of terror suspects - The Washington Post

Probably to calm the tin-foil hat crowd. It's pretty clear from the text of the law that it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely against this bill - not because it applies to US citizens, but that it applies to anyone at all. Justifying indefinite detention of anyone is a problem to me, citizen or not.

It may be clear to you, but it's not so clear to the ACLU and many other civil rights organizations.

And it's not so clear to the POTUS, either.

I'm agreeing with ACLU, but they're not saying what you think they're saying. They're disagreeing with the entire idea of "indefinite detention" - not that they think it applies to US citizens.

From the ACLU website:

The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention

Pointless law, as the NDAA authorizes no such ‘detention.’

Constitutional case law is clear and explicit: the military is not authorized to detain anyone without benefit of habeas but only in the context of actual war, where the courts are unable to function, and only in a given area so effected.

If ever challenged the NDAA would be struck down as un-Constitutional accordingly.

 

[Emma]

EXCEPT when the President says so.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

Paragraph 1:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), theArmed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021


Sections 1021 and 1022 specifically exempt US citizens from military detention. President Obama did issue a waiver regarding non-citizens.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/ppd-14.pdf

The first phrase, Emma.

"Except as provided in paragraph (4)" I quoted paragraph four. When the President says so, he can indefinitely detain anyone he wants, as long as he writes Congress a note saying it's for national security.

Meaning he could waive military detention of covered persons as authorized in 1021, which (as stated in 1021 and 1022) does not include US citizens.

 

[Si modo]

Probably to calm the tin-foil hat crowd. It's pretty clear from the text of the law that it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely against this bill - not because it applies to US citizens, but that it applies to anyone at all. Justifying indefinite detention of anyone is a problem to me, citizen or not.

It may be clear to you, but it's not so clear to the ACLU and many other civil rights organizations.

And it's not so clear to the POTUS, either.

I'm agreeing with ACLU, but they're not saying what you think they're saying. They're disagreeing with the entire idea of "indefinite detention" - not that they think it applies to US citizens.

From the ACLU website:

The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

I'm well aware of what they are saying.

And, what the NDAA says is that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens".

We already know that existing law allows for such and we already know this president has used existing law to execute a US citizen without due process.

That's impressive power with zero checks and zero balances.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It may be clear to you, but it's not so clear to the ACLU and many other civil rights organizations.

And it's not so clear to the POTUS, either.

I'm agreeing with ACLU, but they're not saying what you think they're saying. They're disagreeing with the entire idea of "indefinite detention" - not that they think it applies to US citizens.

From the ACLU website:

The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

I'm well aware of what they are saying.

And, what the NDAA says is that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens".

We already know that existing law allows for such and we already know this president has used existing law to execute a US citizen without due process.

That's impressive power with zero checks and zero balances.

Ideologically, we're agreeing completely. That "existing law" isn't a law - it's an interpretation of Bush's DOJ. NDAA codified much of that doctrine into law.

And, as I said before, I'm under no circumstances a supporter of either Obama or the NDAA.

But that doesn't change the fact that the NDAA specifically states that the section in question does not apply to citizens.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

HB1160 “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

The legislature previously passed HB1160 and forwarded it to Gov. Bob McDonnell for his signature. Last week, the governor agreed to sign the bill with a minor amendment. On Wednesday, the House of Delegates passed the amended version of the legislation 89-7. Just hours later, the Senate concurred by a 36-1 vote.

New Law: Virginia will not cooperate with NDAA detention – Tenth Amendment Center

Hopefully more states follow suit.

Most states already require that their officers take oaths to uphold the Constitution, so there's no need.

 

[Si modo]

I'm agreeing with ACLU, but they're not saying what you think they're saying. They're disagreeing with the entire idea of "indefinite detention" - not that they think it applies to US citizens.

From the ACLU website:


President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

I'm well aware of what they are saying.

And, what the NDAA says is that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens".

We already know that existing law allows for such and we already know this president has used existing law to execute a US citizen without due process.

That's impressive power with zero checks and zero balances.

Ideologically, we're agreeing completely. That "existing law" isn't a law - it's an interpretation of Bush's DOJ. NDAA codified much of that doctrine into law.

And, as I said before, I'm under no circumstances a supporter of either Obama or the NDAA.

But that doesn't change the fact that the NDAA specifically states that the section in question does not apply to citizens.

But it does apply to citizens, because it does NOTHING to affect existing authority.

Maybe we are saying the same thing.

Bottom line, with the controversy from several more educated than I in the law, this law has ambiguous sections and when ambiguous, the power is too focused in our government.

It needs to be fixed.

On that, I am pretty sure we both agree.